About your Search

20130117
20130125
STATION
CSPAN2 2
CNNW 1
CSPAN 1
LINKTV 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
's foreign policy, aid related or diplomacy in our presence throughout the world. you know, if you look back to, say, congress can 20, 25 years ago, it was essentially made up of people who had a relationship to world war ii and its aftermath in terms of u.s. global engagement, the marshall plan and the rebuilding of japan and america's presence. and the relationship also, i mean, and the lessons and the threat posed by the cold war. and those were very defining, major umbrella issues that produced great statesmen, henry jackson and others, on a bipartisan politics at the water's edge, america's presence b and engagement around the world. two superpowers of the um real la that kind of -- umbrella was kind of held over the world and stifled the kind of regional and local factions and tensions that erupted after the end of the cold war. that all had a significant impact on the american people and commitment, i think, and support for the commitment for the u.s. to be a global, globally engaged, the superpower. um, it was the possibility of a five-alarm fire, and everybody's in to try to keep th
're also entering into a new age of some beg decision in foreign policy because this country right now is starting to get some adversaries around the world because of our drone policy. that was not the situation four years ago. so this is -- our foreign policy is going to be judged on just how aggressive we get with that, and there's a growing concern in the community across the country about the drone attacks. just how many innocent people are we killing? there's been concerted conversation about we have to reel this in, and president obama, i think, is going to hear a great deal about that when it comes to foreign policy coming up here in the coming months. just how aggressive are we going to get? >> that specific reference that we should not be in a state of perpetual war. >> we are, and it's a different kind of war. >> i mean, that's the -- legally that's the justification that they cite for saying why it is that we can kill people in places where we're technically not waging some sort of war. that there is a global war still underway, and the authorization of using military force
justice. dr. king was a fierce critic of foreign policy in the vietnam war. in his beyond vietnam speech, which he delivered at the york's riverside church, 1967, a year before the day he was assassinated, dr. king calledll the united states the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. "time" magazine called the speech demagogic slander that sounded like a script for radio hanoi. today, we let you decide. we play an excerpt of dr. king's speech, beyond vietnam. >> after 1954, they watched us conspire to prevent elections which could have surely brought ho chi minh to power over the united vietnam and they realized they had been did -- betrayed again. when we asked why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. also it must be clear that the leaders of hanoi considered the presence of american troops in support of the diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the geneva agreements concerning foreign troops. and they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies, and to the south, until american forces had mo
far. >> i have a foreign policy question but first i wanted to ask, for the administration's response, the house has now passed the three-month suspension of the u.s. debt ceiling. what's your comments? >> it's the same as it was yesterday. the president believes that we need to, as a country, do the responsible thing and without drama or delay pay our bills. meet our commitments. ideally we would extend a raise -- or raise the debt ceiling for a long period of time so that this is not a question, so that the uncertainty that has surrounded this issue of late because of the political strategy that house republicans have taken will be removed or would be removed. it is certainly important to recognize that the bill that passed the house today, the position that the house republicans took beginning late last week represents a fundamental change from a strategy that they pursued up until this point which is to try to link the debt ceiling to an ideological agenda of spending cuts in which the choice presented to the american people was, either face dramatic cuts in social security or med
fiscal cliff discussion, the economy is going to get zooming, we're going to -- foreign policy. >> it could end up being in foreign policy, drawing down troops, transitioning to this new kind of fighting force with the drone warfare, sort of in keeping with what we're alluding to eisenhower had. >> i think we're going to watch too very different but equally fascinating dramas play out. inside washington, the republicans still have the votes to stop the president on many things. they still control the house. they still have operational gridlock in the senate, if you will, even though democrats picked up. inside washington, the president has a challenge. but if you look at this, groundbreaking on gaye rights, back to climate change, gun control, immigration. and who that appeals to, as jack just said. they have made a doubling down of what they did in the campaign. they believe they have the coalition of the future -- young people, latinos, african-americans, and they believe the republican coalition is aging, in decline, and fractured. so they think politically they have the jui
, congress and the administration should be implementing policies that encourage job creation, rein in government regulations, replace our convoluted tax code with one that is fair, simple and certain, open foreign markets to american manufactured goods and agricultural products and develop a comprehensive energy policy. we are not immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. the congressional budget office estimates that government spending on health care entitlements, soegts security and -- social security and interest on the national debt will consume 100% of the total revenues generated by the federal government by the year 2025. that means the money that the government spends on national defense, transportation, veterans health care and other government programs will have to be borrowed, driving us even further into debt. c.b.o. issued a report last june which warned that unless we work to reduce our debt, we face the increased probability of a sudden fiscal crisis that would cause investors to lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget and th
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6